a1023: Re: a1017 Duvalier protectionism (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Philip Richter <philipcrichter@hotmail.com>


From: Philip Richter
Joann:
   Thanks for your comments, and so quickly. I don't doubt that your data is
correct. I wouldn't doubt either - Leslie would know but unfortunately he's
no longer with us - because in its last year or so the leadership and
discipline of the Duvalier regime was in great disarray, that "officially"
or "informally" (as you know, under Duvalier the two sometimes overlapped -
and may still today) the Department of Agriculture may have been blocked out
of the import process and that the Department of Commerce was issuing
licences without regard to quantity, or not issuing licenses for all grain
imports. These are somethings minor but worth thinking about ; remember also
that it was commented at the time that the taste of Madam Gougouse had
changed, it had evolved with the genetic degradation of the long used
strain, and may have been less popular. I don't know anything about changes
in quantity or set price of wheat at that time, which may added to the drop
for corn and rice. Importers may have been asked or required to lower their
price (although margins in grain imports are very small, I hear) or import
cheaper, inferior rice. The Duvalier regime was trying to make people happy,
they were worried. Nobody ever refers to the attempt at democratic elections
in 1981 under pressure from Washington, for instance, for seats in the
legislature (which largely fell apart). The regime did all kinds of
short-term things under pressure first from Carter and then Reagan that were
done without clear public notification or disclosure of what impacts the
regime was seeking.
   Back to the subject. Undoubtedly what you said happenned. I will venture
to say that no agronomist, Haitian or foreign, rural sociologist, technicien
agricole, animateur, CRS food program person, USAID offical or nutritionist,
anthropolgist, or economist, all with whom I was in close contact then,
noted any impact on production, rural income, or rural nutrition because of
that year-long change in import practice. I would guess that the change in
import quantity or quality of rice that year was a willy-nilly attempt to
satisfy consumers. The lavalas administrations' policy, on the other hand,
is a true, democratically approved, structurasl adjustment of the whole
economy with the drop in import restrictions as a very central part of the
very official policy. Its had devasting effects, unlike the year-long
experiment of 1985.
  Thank you for letting me know. If you can learn any more about the 1985
change in import practice - who made it and how the decision was made, what
its true intents were, was contraband involved, was there any internal
dissent towards it in the regime or any objections from civil society, etc.
- please share it with me.
Sincerely,
Philip Richter
P.S. JoAnn: I'm sending this to the list and cc: to you so that you see it
before tonight. PR.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx